SELECE ECE\ CW LEE'\'C§S EE\ FEW-D E31335 5:03.55? Thesis For Elm Degree of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNEVERSETY EmEE. V. L aEasEéy, Jr 1959 PLACE N RETURN BOX to move this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES rctum on or baton duo duo. DATE DUE’ DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU chn mmmmomomuy Institution W RESIDUAL STAND GROWTH IN HARDWOOD SELECTION CUTTINGS IN THE FRED RUSS FOREST by EMIL V. FALASKY, JR. AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the College of Agriculture Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE 'Department of Forestry 1959 monk MW ' 1' Emil V. Falasky, Jr. AN ABSTRACT Oak-mixed hardwood stands are widely distributed and of high econo- mic importance in southern lower Michigan. Much information is still needed on the silviculture and management of this type. In the fall of 1952, a study aimed at determining the suitability of various cutting methods and other management techniques for oak-mixed hardwoods was be— gun on the Fred Russ Forest. For the purposes of the study, the area was divided into 20 plots of 2 acres each. All trees 7.5 inches d.b.h. and larger were measured. The following information was recorded: species, d.b.h. to the nearest tenth inch; merchantable height in 16-foot logs to the nearest half-log; form class; crown class, by the four standard classes; grade of the butt log; and cull defect class. Five treatments with four replications for each were applied to the area at random. Cutting treatments included a shelterwood treatment; a group selection treatment; a heavy single-tree selection treatment with a residual basal area of 75 square feet per acre; a light single-tree selection with a residual basal area of 90 square feet per acre; and a control where no cutting was done. This paper deals only with the two single-tree selection treatments and the control. In the fall of 1958, five years after cutting the stand was rein- ventoried. Percentages of white oak and sugar maple remaining in the residual stand increased slightly on both cutting treatments. Black oak was reduced as a component on both treatment. Five-year growth expressed as a percentage of the residual growing stock was approximately the same for the 2 cutting treatments. Both treatments averaged 3 to 4 percent higher than the control plots. Emil V. Falasky, Jr. iii In all treatments, vigor class 1 trees were the only ones which contributed more than their proportion of the five-year growth. Mortality decreased as the cutting intensity increased. Practi— cally all of the mortality occurred in 2 species, white and black oak. Average per acre mortality ranged from 310 board feet on the heavy se- lection treatment to 336 board feet on the control\plots. On the 2 cutting treatments, mortality was well distributed among diameter classes. Competition for growing space on the control plots caused a concentration of mortality in the smaller diameter classes. Basal area ingrowth on the heavy selection treatment was more than double that on the control plots. Sugar maple dominated the in— growth picture on all treatments. Almost 50 percent of the ingrowth on the heavy selection treate ment was in vigor 1 trees, compared with 30 percent for the light se- lection and 10 percent for the control plots. Analyses of variance for basal area and net volume of total growth, mortality and ingrowth showed no significant differences between cut- ting periods. Other investigators indicate similar results when ana- lyzing first cuts in previously unmanaged stands. Data from each cut— ting period will increasingly reflect the effects of the specific cutting treatments. It is expected that after several cutting cycles under management, significant differences between treatments will ap- pear. RESIDUAL STAND GROWTH IN HARDWOOD SELECTION CUTTINGS IN THE FRED RUSS FOREST by EMIL V. FALASKY, JR. A THESIS Submitted to the College of Agriculture Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Forestry 1959 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express thanks to Dr. Victor J. Rudolph, Associate Professor of Forestry, for suggesting this study, and for his assistance and guidance during its preparation, and to Dr. T. D. Stevens, Professor of Forestry, and Head, Department of Forestry, for the opportunity to conduct this investigation. To his wife, Dorothy, the author expresses his thanks for her words of encouragement and patience during the study, and for her assistance in the preparation of the tabular material. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . LITERATURE REVIEW Studies in the Northeast . Studies in the Central States Studies in the Lake States DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA FIELD PROCEDURE PROCESSING THE DATA RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . Total Growth . By Treatment By Vigor Class . Mortality By Treatment By Species . By Diameter Class Ingrowth . By Treatment By Species By Crown Class By Vigor Class . SUMMARY LITERATURE CITED . APPENDIX . Page 10 31 31 35 37 37 37 4O 41 41 41 41 41 46 51 53 Table 10. 11. 12. LIST OF TABLES Title Stand and Stock Table, Initial Stand, Heavy- Single—Tree Selection Cutting Treatment - Per Acre Basis Stand and Stock Table, Initial Stand, Light Single-Tree Selection Cutting Treatment - Per Acre Basis . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . Stand and Stock Table, Initial Stand, Control - (No Cutting) - Per Acre Basis . . . . Stand and Stock Table, Residual Stand, Heavy Single-Tree Selection Cutting Treatment - Per Acre Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stand and Stock Table, Residual Stand, Light Single-Tree Selection Cutting Treatment - Per Acre Basis . . . . . . Stand and Stock Table, Five Years After Cut- ting, Heavy Single-Tree Selection Cutting Treatment - Per Acre Basis . Stand and Stock Table, Five Years After Cut- ting, Light Single—Tree Selection Cutting Treatment - Per Acre Basis . . Stand and Stock Table, Five Years After Cut- ting, Control (No Cutting) - Per Acre Basis Stand Composition Before and After Cutting, Heavy Single-Tree Selection Cutting Treat— ment - Per Acre Basis Stand Composition Before and After Cutting Right Single-Tree Selection Cutting Treat- ment - Per Acre Basis Stand Composition Before and After Cutting, Control (No Cutting) - Per Acre Basis . Total Growth by Treatment and Vigor, Heavy Single-Tree Selection Cutting Treatment - Per Acre Basis . Page 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 30 32 Table 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Title Total Growth by Treatment and Vigor, Light Single-Tree Selection Cutting Treatment - Per Acre Basis Total Growth by Treatment and Vigor, Control (No Cutting) - Per Acre Basis Five-Year Mortality Per Acre by Species and Treatment Annual Mortality Per Acre by Species and Treatment Ingrowth Per Acre by Treatment and Species Ingrowth Per Acre by Treatment and Crown Class Ingrowth Per Acre by Treatment and Vigor . viii Page 33 34 38 39 42 43 44 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Title 1. Number of Trees Per Acre by Cutting Treat- ment - Initial Stand . Basal Area Per Acre by Cutting Treatment - Initial Stand . . . . Volume Per Acre by Cutting Treatment — Initial Stand Number of Trees Per Acre by Cutting Treat- ment - Residual Stand Basal Area Per Acre by Cutting Treatment - Residual Stand . Volume Per Acre by Cutting Treatment - Residual Stand . NUmber of Trees Per Acre by Cutting Treat- ment - Stand Five Years After Cutting Basal Area Per Acre by Cutting Treatment — Stand Five Years After Cutting . Volume Per Acre by Cutting Treatment - Stand Five Years After Cutting . Page 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 Residual Stand Growth in Hardwood Selection Cuttings in the Fred Russ Forest Oak-mixed hardwood stands are widely distributed and of high econ- omic importance in southern‘lower Michigan. These stands are in the transitional zone between northern hardwoods and the oak-hickory and similar species mixtures of the Central States. Included in this group are white oak (Quercus alba L.), black oak (g. velutina Lam.), red oak (g. rubra L.), sugar maple (Aber saccharum Marsh), red maple (A. rubrum L.), black cherry (Prunus serotina Ehrh.), American elm (Ulmus ameri- cana L.), black walnut (Juglans nigra L.), yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera L.), white ash (Fraxinus americana L.), beech (Fagus grandi— folia Ehrh.), and basswood (Tilia americana L.). Most stands of this type are located on privately owned farm lands. Individual ownerships may vary from a few to several hundred acres, the average being approximately 15 acres. The principal forest product is sawlogs. Veneer logs, fuelwood, and some piling are also produced. Although pulpwood is a potentially important product, only a limited amount is produced at the present time. In many stands, unwise cutting and grazing practices have resulted in poorly stocked stands with a high proportion of defective trees and an insufficient amount of reproduction of desirable species. In a few cases undercutting presents a problem. Insufficient cutting prevents maximum net growth and causes an accumulation of poor quality, low vigor trees. 2 Much work remains to be done in the silviculture and management of the varied forest types of lower Michigan before final recommendations can be made. Previous investigators have concentrated their work pri- marily in the northern hardwood type of the Upper Peninsula and the northern portion of the Lower Peninsula. This study is aimed at determining the suitability of various cut- ting methods and other management techniques to oak-mixed hardwood stands in southern Michigan. Literature Review Studies in the Northeast Working with old—growth northern hardwoods in the New England states, Gilbert and Jensen (1958) recommend a moderately heavy first cut. Twenty—five to 40 percent of the volume in trees 5 inches d.b.h. and larger would be removed. A residual basal area of 60 to 80 square feet is recommended,depending upon the quality of the product being grown. For bulk products a stocking of 60 square feet of basal area in trees from 5 to 18 inches is indicated. For high quality products, 80 square feet of basal area in trees from 5 to 25 inches is the desired degree of stocking. Jensen (1943) found that the heavier the cut the greater was the 5-year diameter growth of the residual trees. A residual stand with 60 to 75 square feet of basal area in trees 4 inches and up gave the maxi- mum basal area growth. Gilbert, Wilson and Hutnik (1955) report that cuts removing 25 or 30 percent of the volume are satisfactory silviculturally. They recom- mend holding 80 square feet of basal area in trees 5 inches and larger. Maintaining approximately 45 percent of the volume in trees 16 inches and up is suggested to maximize the production of high quality products. Studies in the Central States Minckler (1958) found that a combined heavy improvement and har- vest cut gave the best growth results for bottomland hardwoods in south- western Illinois. Residual basal area was as follows: heavy cut, 45 square feet; light cut, 66 square feet and control 89 square feet. Net volume growth 3 years after cutting was about the same for all treat- ments, but basal area growth was about 4 times greater on the heavily cut plots. Mortality on the other hand, was 10 times greater on the check plots. Comparing growth between cut and uncut stands in mixed hardwoods in Kentucky, Sander and Williamson (1957) report the following results 32 years after a harvest cut which removed 2/3 of the basal area, and 80 percent of the volume. The number of trees on the cut plots more than doubled, while the check plots showed a decrease. Basal area growth on the cut plots was double that of the control. Volume growth was 3 1/2 times greater on the cut plots. Cutting changed the composi- tion of the treated area from mostly oak to predominantly sugar maple. According to Meteer (1953) annual mortality in Ohio hardwoods ranges from O to 55 board feet per acre. Studies in the Lake States Zillgitt (1948) analyzed 8 degrees of selection cuttings in north- ern hardwoods in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. He found that a residual stand of 44 square feet of basal area per acre (3,500 bd. ft.) in trees 10 inches and above, gave the highest rate of return on the investment. Maximum growth rate volumewise, was obtained with a residual stand of 64 square feet per acre (6,000 bd. ft.). Stands with a residual basal area over 74 square feet (7,000 bd. ft.) could not be justified by either growth or rate of return on investment. Adequate distribution of size classes was easier to maintain at the 64 square-foot level than at the 44 square—foot level. Zillgitt therefore suggests a compromise at 60 square feet of residual basal area (5,500 bd. ft.) per acre. La- ter analysis of additional data on this study resulted in essentially the same conclusions (Eyre and Zillgitt 1953). Arbogast (1957) recommends reducing the basal area of the sawtim- ber portion of the stand (10 inches and larger) to 70 square feet where there is overstocking in the sawtimber sizes, and understocking in the sapling and pole sizes. Board-foot growth in oak woodlots may be increased as much as 20 percent according to Arend and Monroe (1950) by the application of pro- per improvement cuttings. Board-foot ingrowth after cutting was found to be a minor portion (7 to 13 percent) of total annual growth by Longwood (1951). Average annual ingrowth for a 20-year period varied from 10 board feet (gross) on the check area, to 34 board feet on the heavy cuttings where 62 to 68 percent of the sawtimber volume was removed.) Description of Area The Fred Russ Forest is located in southwestern Michigan in Cass County near Dowagiac. Included in the 580-acre tract are forest plan- tations of both coniferous and hardwood species, some second-growth hardwood stands, and approximately 160 acres of old-growth hardwoods. The portion of this old-growth stand in which the study area is located is between 150 and 200 years old. The area has been relatively undis- turbed for over 100 years. The forest has level to gently rolling topography. It lies be— tween two ridges of the Kalamazoo moraine and is drained by Dowagiac Creek. The soil of the 40-acre study area is classified as Miami sandy loam, and was formed in an outwash plain from sandy glacial drift. In contrast to most of Michigan's forests, this stand escaped se— vere cutting. In addition to salvage of windthrows and other similarly injured trees, only two light cuttings have taken place. The first cut- ting just prior to World War I removed some high quality black walnut logs which were exported to Germany. During the early stages of World War II, a second cutting removed some of the largest and best white oak for construction of motor torpedo boats. A few overmature trees have 1 been cut for instructional purposes since the University acquired the property in 1942. There is no evidence of damaging fires within recent times and no history or evidence of grazing on the area. At the time of initial inventory, net volume was high, averaging approximately 14,900 board feet per acre. Half of this volume was in white oak. Black oak accounted for 26 percent, and sugar maple 7 per- cent. The remaining 17 percent was in miscellaneous species including red maple, black cherry, American elm, black walnut, yellow-poplar, white ash, beech, and basswood. The basal area averaged 122 square feet per acre and showed approx- imately the same distribution among species as the net volume. . Curves were constructed showing net volume in board feet per square foot of basal area by diameter class. These indicated a significant in— crease in defect as diameter increased. Since the stand had developed without management many trees especially in the larger diameters had considerable defect. Rudolph (1956) states "it is very likely that net volume conditions in this stand have remained fairly static for some time in the past." This condition is in contrast with other unmanaged but less heavily stocked hardwood stands of southern Michigan. The diameter distribution for all species combined is fairly typi- cal for an uneven-aged stand. However, differences between the three most important species, white oak, black oak, and sugar maple, are quite marked. No oaks below 4 inches d.b.h. were found in the stand, but a tremendous number of sugar maple were present in the smaller diameters. In the diameters above 23 inches, practically no sugar maple was found, but a fairly uniform distribution of oaks was maintained. It is appar- ent that for some time the oak component of the stand had been decreas- ing and was being replaced by the more tolerant sugar maple. If the oak component was to be maintained or increased, some type of heavy cutting appeared necessary. Field Procedure For purposes of this study the area was divided into 20 plots of 2 acres each. All trees 7.5 inches d.b.h. and larger were assigned a number. Tree number and the point of initial diameter measurement were painted on the trees. In addition to tree number, the following infor- mation was recorded for each tree: species; d.b.h. to the nearest tenth inch; merchantable height in l6-foot logs to the nearest half-log; form class; crown class, by the four standard crown classes for even—aged stands; grade of the butt log by the four log grades used by the U. S. Forest Service in grading northern hardwood logs (U. S. Forest Service 1949); and cull defect class, based on the six cull defect classes as developed by Zillgitt and Gevorkiantz (1946). Five treatments were as- signed to the plots at random, with 4 replications for each treatment. The three treatments to be considered in this paper include: a rela- tively light single-tree selection cutting leaving approximately 90 square feet of basal area in the residual stand; a heavy single-tree selection cutting leaving approximately 75 square feet of basal area; and control or check treatment where no cutting was done. In the winter of 1953-54, the cutting treatments were applied to the area. Felling and bucking were done by power chain saws. In an effort to prevent unequal disturbance of the forest floor, all log load- ing was done outside the experimental area. Larger logs were ground skidded with either a crawler tractor and winch, or a rubber-tired tractor with a hydraulic lift. Smaller logs were loaded on a logging sled for hauling. Advantage was taken of existing roads and trails 8 wherever possible. However, in some cases, new trails had to be devel- oped to avoid crossing control plots. In some cuttings, many small trees with little or no volume had to be cut to accomplish the desired silvicultural conditions in terms of ‘residual basal area. Heavy accumulations of slash were lopped after skidding was completed. In the fall of 1958, five years after cutting, the stand was re- inventoried. In addition, all ingrowth trees were assigned numbers be- ginning where the original inventory ended. Species, d.b.h., crown class, grade of butt log and cull defect class were also recorded. Processing of the Data All data was tallied in coded form so it could be transferred to punch cards. Data for the initial stand, the residual stand, and the stand after 5 years of growth wer' processed using machine methods. In addition to data collected in the field, basal area, gross and net volume data (Gevorkiantz and Olsen 1955) were machine-calculated and punched into the cards. Additional cards were made for the ingrowth trees. These cards and the cards for trees cut in 1952 and mortality trees were code punched so they could be easily sorted out of the main deck of cards. After all information was punched into the cards, machine sorting and tabulating was performed. Listings were then run for the initial stand, residual stand and stand five years after cutting. Growth data were obtained from a special listing. Basal area and volume in 1958 were tabulated for each d.b.h. class of the residual stand. Due to the small number of trees involved, information on mortality and ingrowth was sorted and tabulated manually. Results and Discussion Composition Changes as a Result of Treatment Following cutting, the percentages of white oak and sugar maple volume remaining in the residual stand were increased approximately 2 percent, in both the light and the heavy single-tree selection treat- ments (Tables 9 and 10). Black oak was reduced as a component in both treatment areas. Red oak increased slightly in the residual stand in the light selection cuttings, but remained approximately the same in the heavy selection cuttings. Miscellaneous species increased in per- centage of basal area on the heavy cutting area, but the percentage of volume was reduced. In the light selection cutting, both the basal area and volume percentages of these miscellaneous species was reduced approximately 2 percent. As previously noted, initial stand volume was quite high. (Tables 1, 2, and 3.). Due to differences in initial stocking, more basal area was removed in the light selection cutting treatment than in the heavy selection cutting treatment. This resulted from the heavy selection plots having approximately 10 square feet of basal area below the aver- age condition for all areas. The light selection plots had 6 square feet of basal area above the average for all areas. Therefore, to re- duce the basal area in the residual stand to the desired level, the cut on the light selection area actually removed more basal area. The same relationship held true for volume. In the light selec- tion cutting, approximately 2,600 bd. ft. (gross) and 600 bd. ft. (net) 11 TABLE 1. Initial Stand Heavy Single-Tree Selection Cutting Stand and Stock Table - Per Acre Basis D.b.h. Gross Net class, Number Basal area volume volume inches of trees sq. ft. bd.ft. bd.ft. 8 8.5 2.91 -- -- , 9 6.9 2.96 -- -- 10 5.9 3.16 211 196 11 4.6 3.05 257 241 12 3.6 2.84 272 253 13 5.2 4.75 522 486 14 5.1 5.48 722 676 15 3.8 4.57 633 598 16 2.4 3.31 465 441 17 3.5 5.50 794 740 18 3.0 5.32 789 745 19 3.6 7.09 1,086 1,016 20 3.1 6.76 1,000 926 21 2.2 5.42 788 733 22 2.1 5.61 850 764 23 2.1 6.11 885 762 24 2.2 7.06 1,075 946 25 1.5 5.10 769 667 26 0.8 2.79 381 324 27 0.9 3.47 519 459 28 1.2 5.32 768 656 29 1.1 5.11 703 600 30 0.5 2.45 308 250 31 0.2 1.29 218 199 32+ 0.8 4.33 518 433 Total 75.0 112.29 14,532 13,109 Number of Trees per Acre W2 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 FIGURE 1. Number of Trees Per Acre by Cutting Treatment Heavy single-tree selection Initial Stand WWW/A Light single-tree selection Cutting Treatment /////////////////A Control (No cutting) 12 13 TABLE 2. Initial Stand Light Single-Tree Selection Cutting Stand and Stock Table - Per Acre Basis D.b.h. Gross Net class, Number Basal area volume volume inches of trees sq. ft. bd.ft. bd.ft. 8 8.4 2.89 -- -- 9 7.9 3.42 -- -- 10 7.6 4.08 283 262 11 8.2 5.45 500 470 12 7.0 5.46 571 534 13 6.2 5.72 628 587 14 6.0 6.35 832 769 15 3.6 4.40 569 532 16 4.9 6.73 971 902 17 4.9 7.71 1,119 1,014 18 4.2 7.46 1,086 990 19 3.4 6.55 971 884 20 3.6 7.90 1,230 1,048 21 2.5 5.98 956 841 22 2.5 6.58 1,120 968 23 1.8 5.06 856 724 24 1.2 3.97 618 531 25 1.5 5.02 801 750 26 0.8 2.74 466 404 27 0.8 2.98 476 413 28 0.6. 2.68 466 400 29 0.6 2.86 445 340 30 0.9 4.29 626 478 31 0.2 1.34 183 154 32+ 1.6 10.89 1,962 1,771 Total 91.0 128.50 17,736 15,771 00000000000000 3333333333333 1 1 15 TABLE 3. Initial Stand Control (No Cutting) Stand and Stock Table — Per Acre Basis D.b.h. Gross Net class, Number Basal area volume volume inches of trees sq. ft. bd.ft. bd.ft. 8 6.1 2.11 -- -— 9 5.1 2.18 -- -- 10 5.6 3.06 219 198 11 5.9 3.85 336 310 12 5.6 4.40 . 447 405 13 5.8 5.34 637 584 14 5.4 5.71 758 677 15 5.1 6.38 908 839 16 3.8 5.20 779 707 17 3.4 5.25 812 738 18 3.1 5.48 838 765 19 2.8 5.39 871‘ 802 20 2.6 5.92 914 812 21 1.8 4.63 648 659 22 2.1 5.56 900 802 23 2.1 6.09 1,000 904 24 1.0 3.12 426 367 25 1.2 4.22 660 578 26 1.1 4.13 612 520 27 11.6 6.46 1,071 916 28 0.8 3.18 579 475 29 1.1 5.12 740 610 30 1.2 6.10 1,181 1,038 31 0.6 3.29 490 409 32+ 1.9 11.50 1,981 1,751 Total 77.0 123.69 17,896 15,911 16 FIGURE 3. Volume Per Acre by Cutting Treatment Initial Stand Gross volume Control (No cutting) \\\\\\ \\\\ \\\‘ Net volume 20 18 \\\\\\\\\\\\\ Light single-tree §\\\\\\\\\ 6 4 2 0 8 6 1 1 1 1 .pm .53 mo monomsonh I ono< pom 083Ho> Heavy single-tree selection selection Cutting Treatment 17 TABLE 4. Residual Stand Heavy Single—Tree Selection Cutting Stand and Stock Table - Per Acre Basis D.b.h. Gross Net class, Number Basal area volume volume inches of trees sq. ft. bd.ft. bd.ft. . 8 6.2 2.14 —- —- 9 4.4 1.87 —- -- 10 4.0 2.17 152 142 11 3.9 2.55 216 205 12 2.6 2.05 203 194 13 4.2 3.86 437 409 14 4.4 4.68 618 582 15 3.2 3.95 550 526 16 1.6 2.26 317 303 17 2.9 4.52 675 642 18 2.6 4:67 696 660 19 3.1 6.13 941 884 20 2.6 5.67 854 794 21 1.6 3.93 577 543 22 1.6 4.31 638 586 23 1.0 2.88 432 398 24 1.1 3.53 585 547 25 0.4 1.30 175 162 26 0.4 1.39 203 184 27 0.4 1.49 219 202 28 0.8 3.18 471 418 29 0.6 2.84 415 377 30 0 l 0.59 86 67 31 -- -- -- -- 32+ 0.2 2.14 141 120 Total 54.1 73.60 9,602 8,946 Number of Trees Per Acre WM 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 FIGURE 4. Number of Trees Per Acre by Cutting Treatment Heavy has single-tree selection Residual Stand v //////////////// W/ Light Control single—tree (No cutting) selection Cutting Treatment 18 TABLE 5. Residual Stand Light Single-Tree Selection Cutting Stand and Stock Table — Per Acre Basis 19 D.b.h. Gross Net class, Number Basal area volume volume inches of trees sq. ft. bd.ft. bd.ft. 8 6.4 2.19 -- -- 9 5.6 2.44 -- —— 10 5.4 2.88 201 186 11 6.6 4.37 390 366 12 6.1 4.78 502 476 13 5.0 4.60 532 500 14 5.5 5.84 777 725 15 3.2 3.93 530 499 16 4.1 5.73 837 788 17 4.1 6.53 980 892 18 3.4 5.94 894 824 19 2.6 5.08 779 714 20 2.1 4.63 721 635 21 1.8 4.19 665 604 22 1.5 3.93 692 629 23 1.0 2.90 496 463 24 0.5 1.60 224 185 25 1.1 3.79 604 567 26 0.2 0.94 163 158 27 0.4 1.48 232 210 28 0.2 1.09 189 168 29 0.4 1.71 270 218 30 0.1 0.60 101 94 31 0.2 1.34 183 154 32+ 0.8 5.00 1,016 1,004 Total 68.5 87.52 11,982 11,037 E 00000000000000 3333333333333 1 1 l 1 TABLE 6. Stand Five Years After Cutting Heavy Single-Tree Selection Cutting Stand and Stock Table - Per Acre Basis 21 D.b.h. Gross Net class, Number Basal area volume volume inches of trees sq. ft. bd.ft. bd.ft. 8 11.4 3.92 -- -- 9 7.9 3.38 -- -- 10 5.1 2.76 75 70 11 3.4 2.26 153 146 12 3.5 2.67 227 213 13 4.1 3.80 387 365 14 3.0 3.16 395 372 15 4.4 5.30 686 645 16 3.0 4.10 577 552 17 2.2 3.57 517 492 18 2.1 3.76 579 556 19 2.9 5.62 815 764 20 2.8 5.90 944 890 21 2.5 5.87 920 853 22 1.9 4.95 777 733 23 1.0 2.84 394 356 24 1.1 3.44 533 493 25 0.9 2.96 497 462 26 0.4 1.35 191 177 27 0.5 1.96 288 266 28 0.5 2.16 296 264 29 0.6 2.85 445 402 30 0.4 1.82 272 240 31 0.2 1.27 185 136 32+ 0.4 2.46 274 234 Total 66.1 84.15. 10,427 9,681 ft. Volume Per Acre, Thousands of bd. //////// 18 16 14 12 10 Volume Per Acre by Cutting Treatment Res Gross Volu 9% Net Volume Heavy single-tree selection FIGURE 6. idual Stand me E7/ ///////; Light single—tree selection Cutting Treatment L 7/////////é Control (No cutting) 22 23 TABLE 7. Stand Five Years After Cutting Light Single-Tree Selection Cutting Stand and Stock Table - Per Acre Basis D.b.h. Gross Net class, Number Basal area volume volume inches of trees sq. ft. bd.ft. bd.ft. 8 9.8 3.37 -— -- 9 7.6 3.30 —— -- 10 5.6 3.01 103 96 11 7.1 4.66 343 318 12 5.5 4.34 409 384 13 5.8 5.20 586 556 14 3.8 3.95 466 436 15 5.1 6.19 818 764 16 4.1 5.68 783 733 17 3.5 5.46 814 760 18 4.1 7.24 1,085 1,002 19 3.8 7.37 1,143 1,057 20 2.0 4.34 664 608 21 1.6 3.90 602 528 22 1.2 3.23 552 507 23 1.8 4.99 865 805 24 0.9 2.76 467 401 25 1.1 3.80 604 538 26 0.6 2.27 354 336 27 0.5 1.97 314 289 28 0.2 1.04 202 196 29 0.2 1.16 160 126 30 0.5 2.44 436 385 31 -- -- -- -- 32+ 6.75 1,293 1,221 l a C Total 77.5 98.43 13,066 12,049 Number of Trees Per Acre /////// 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 FIGURE 7. Number of Trees Per Acre by Cutting Treatment / Heavy single—tree selection Five Years After Cutting /////2 A 7 Light single-tree selection Cutting Treatment 7/////////////// Control (No cutting) 25 TABLE 8. Stand Five Years After Cutting Control (No Cutting) Stand and Stock Table — Per Acre Basis D.b.h. Gross Net class, Number Basal area volume volume inches of trees sq. ft. bd.ft. bd.ft. 8 7.5 2.57 -— -— 9 5.9 2.55 -- -- 10 4.1 2.23 91 81 11 5.9 3.81 283 258 12 5.9 4.58 425 390 13 5.8 5.26 574 526 14 4.4 4.62 594 545 15 4.5 5.52 754 680 16 5.1 7.13 1,034 950 17 3.4 5.26 798 744 18 3.2 5.72 876 784 19 2.6 5.18 746 666 20 3.1 6.79 1,148 1,060 21 2.8 6.56 1,077 965 22 2.2 5.98 960 891 23 2.2 6.52 1,058 948 24 1.8 5.48 861 778 25 1.1 3.84 602 535 26 1.4 5.08 738 625 27 0.8 3.04 451 374 28 1.1 4.77 802 692 29 1.2 5.68 1,044 887 30 1.2 6.08 959 760 31 0.8 3.94 681 593 32+ 2.4 14.63 2,545 2,244 Total 80.4 132.82 19,102 16,975 §§ 000000000000000 33333333333333 11111 27 TABLE 9. Stand Composition Before and After Cutting Heavy Single-Tree Selection Treatment - Per Acre Basis Percent Percent Basal Gross Net of total of total Species No.of area volume volume basal net trees sq.ft. bd.ft. bd.ft. area volume Initial Stand White oak 33.2 64.40 8,486 7,514 57.4 57.3 Black oak 21.6 31.14 4,369 4,037 27.7 30.8 Red oak 4.5 7.39 1,016 943 6.6 7.2 Sugar maple 11.4 5.85 291 271 5.2 2.1 Miscellaneous 4.3 3.51 370 344 3.1 2.6 Total 75.0 112.29 14,532 13,109 100.0 100.0 Residual Stand White oak 22.2 41.56 5,751 5.272 56.5 58.9 Black oak 15.9 20.18 2,727 2,599 27.4 29.1 Red oak 3.4 4.58 634 611 6.2 6.8 Sugar maple 9.9 4.11 276 259 5.6 2.9 Miscellaneous 2.7 3.17 214 205 4.3 2.3 Total 54.1 73.60 9,602 8,946 100.0 100.0 Volume Per Acre, Thousands of bd. ft. 7///////§ 20 18 16 14 12 10 Volume Per Acre by Cutting Treatment IE FIGURE 9. Five Years After Cutting Gross volume m Net volume Heavy Single-tree selection WW Light single-tree selection Cutting Treatment V////////////// Control (No cutting) 28 29 TABLE 10. ‘ Stand Composition Before and After Cutting Light Single-Tree Selection Treatment - Per Acre Basis Percent Percent Basal Gross Net of total of total Species No.of area volume volume basal net trees sq.ft. bd.ft. bd.ft. area volume Initial Stand White oak 38.8 59.84 7,991 7,136 46.6 45.3 Black oak 16.6 25.75 3,818 3,486 20.0 22.1 Red oak 2.2 5.26 922 885 4.1 5.6 Sugar maple 19.9 20.29 2,531 2,134 15.8 13.5 Miscellaneous 13.5 17.36 2,474 2,130 13.5 13.5 Total 91.0 128.50 17,736 15,771 100.0 100.0 Residual Stand White oak 27.8 42.61 5,929 5,427 48.7 49.2 Black oak 11.4 13.52 1,890 1,788 15.5 16.2 Red oak 2.1 4.85 875 845 5.5 7.7 Sugar maple 17.2 16.37 1,966 1,748 18.7 15.8 Miscellaneous 10.0 10.17 1,322 1,229 11.6 11.1 Total 68.5 87.52 11,982 11,037 100.0 100.0 30 TABLE 11. Stand Composition Before and After Cutting Control (No Cutting) - Per Acre Basis Initial and Residual Stand Percent Percent Basal Gross Net, of total of total Species No.0f area volume volume basal net trees sq.ft. bd.ft. bd.ft. area volume White oak 26.0 59.83 8,556 7,450 48.4 46.8 Black oak 10.8 20.71 3,400 3,120 16.8 19.6 Red oak 2.6 7.19 1,367 1,236 5.8 7.8 Sugar maple 21.2 16.51 1,794 1,579 13.3 9.9 Miscellaneous 16.4 19.45 2,789 2,526 15.7 15.9 Total 77.0 123,69 17,906 15,911 100.0 100.0 31 more volume was removed than in the heavy selection cutting, on a per acre basis. These facts undoubtedly explain the greater total board- foot growth on the more lightly cut plots. There were more trees in the residual stand on the light selection cut plots than on the heavy selection cut plots. Still all trees had sufficient growing space to make favorable growth responses after cutting. Total net volume growth was approximately 1,000 bd. ft. on the heavy selection plots. The light selection plots grew approximately 1,300 bd. ft. (Tables 12 and 13). Table 14 shows that the control plots grew 100 bd. ft. more than the light selection treatment. This can also be explained by residual grow- ing stock, the control plots having approximately 30 percent more grow— ing stock than the lightly cut area, and approximately 40 percent more than the heavily cut area. Five-year growth expressed as a percentage of residual basal area and volume varied an extremely small amount. The greatest difference was 0.4 percent. The ability of the light selection cut plots to equal the growth percentage of the heavy selection plots is also explained by the differences in initial stocking. However both of the cutting treatments grew approximately 12 percent of the residual stand volume, or 3 to 4 percent more than the control plots. Gross Growth by Treatment and Vigor TABLE 13. Light Single-Tree Selection Treatment - Per Acre Basis Percent of Vigor residual Growth by Percent of class growing stock vigor class growth in in vigor class vigor class Basal area, sq. ft. 1 53.2 5.74 61.1 2 36.5 2.93 31.2 3 9.5 0.70 7.5 4 0.8 0.02 0.2 Total 100.0 9.39 100.0 Gross volume, bd. ft. 1 56.9 897 63.0 2 34.4 415 29.2 3 7.9 105 7.4 4 0.8 6 0.4 Total 100.0 1,423 100.0 Net volume, bd. ft. 1 58.9 850 63.9 2 33.7 393 29.5 3 6.7 82 6.2 4 0.7 5 0.4 Total 100.0 1,330 100 0 TABLE 14. Gross Growth by Treatment and Vigor Control (No Cutting) Per Acre Basis Percent of Vigor residual Growth by class growing stock in vigor class Percent of vigor class growth in vigor class Basal area, sq. ft. 1 43.4 5.82 57.2 2 30.9 2.76 27.1 3 18.6 1.24 12.2 4 7.1 0.35 3.5 Total 100.0 10.17 100.0 Gross volume, bd. ft. 1 45.3 978 61.9 2 31.9 380 24.1 3 17.2 173 11.0 4 5.6 48 3.0 Total 100.0 1,579 100.0 Net volume, bd. ft. 1 48.0 923 65.8 2 32.6 347 24.8 3 15.6 106 7.6 4 3.8 25 1.8 Total 100.0 1,401 100.0 35 Analysis of Gross Growth Data An analysis of gross growth by treatment showed no significance for either basal area or net volume. To be significant at the 5 per- cent level an "F" value greater than 4.26 was necessary. Analysis of variance of gains Source of Degrees’ Sum of Mean variation of freedom squares squares F Basal area Total 11 104.12 Treatment 2 ‘ 7.05 3.52 Error 9 97.07 10.79 0.326 NS Net volume Total 11 2,998,749.67 Treatment 2 250,591.67 124,295.84 Error 9 2,748,158.00 305,350.89 0.410 NS GrOWth.BX.X1§25.ElE§§ In all treatments, vigor class 1 trees were the only ones which contributed more than their proportion of the five—year growth. This relationship holds true for basal area, and gross and net volume growth. In all other vigor classes} the percentage of five-year growth was generally well below the percentage of residual growing stock in that vigor class. On the heavy selection treatment, vigor class 1 trees having only 56 percent of the residual basal area contributed 64 percent of the growth. Vigor class 1 trees contained 58 percent of the gross volume 36 and 59 percent of the net volume, yet contributed 67 and 68 percent, respectively, of the gross and net board-foot volume growth. Even though vigor class 2 trees contributed less than their share of the growth based on proportion of residual growing stock, vigor classes 1 and 2 combined represented 98 percent of all growth in the heavy se— lection cutting treatment. On the light selection treatment, growth of vigor class 1 trees followed a similar pattern. Vigor class 1 trees with 53 percent of the residual basal area produced 61 percent of the basal area growth. Fifty-seven percent of the residual gross volume and 59 percent of the residual net volume, was represented by vigor class 1, which contri- buted 63 and 64 percent, respectively, of the gross and net volume growth. On this treatment, the combined growth of vigor classes 1 and 2 represented 92 percent of the basal area and gross volume growth. Net volume growth of combined vigor classes 1 and 2 was approximately 93 percent of the total net volume increase. The percentages of growth contributed by vigor class 1 trees on the control plots were smaller than those on the treated plots. How- ever, these percentages showed greater increases in the contributions of vigor class 1 to total growth. Basal area growth was approximately 14 percent higher than the percentage of basal area in the residual stand. Gross and net volume were 17 and 18 percent higher, respect- ively (Table 14). Combined growth of vigor class 1 and 2 was only 84 percent of the basal area, 86 percent of the gross volume but almost 91 percent of the net volume on these plots. 37 Mortality As expected, the mortality decreased as the cutting intensity in- creased. Since the area was previously unmanaged, the cut was to a large degree a heavy improvement cut as well as a harvest cut. Fewer low vigor, high risk trees were left on the more heavily cut plots. Mortality ranged from 0 to 920 board feet net volume per acre on the individual plots. Average per acre mortality ranged from 310 bd. ft. on the heavy selection cutting treatment to 336 bd. ft. net volume on the control plots. These differences would have been even more appar— ent except for one plot in the.heavy selection treatment which suffered extremely high mortality for unknown reasons. This was the plot with the highest mortality on the area, 920 bd. ft. per acre. This plot alone accounted for three-fourths of the mortality in the heavy selec- tion treatment. Five-year mortality by species and treatment is summarized in Table 15. Practically all of the mortality occurred in species, white oak and black oak. White oaks lost more volume than black oak on the heavy selection treatment and the control plots, but only about one- half as much net volume on the lightly cut plots. This can be explained by the composition of the residual stand. The light selection treat— ment had approximately 3 percent less net volume than the controls and 13 percent less net volume than the heavy selection treatment. Only a very few sugar maple were lost and these were in the two smallest diameter classes. Two out of 3 sugar maple lost on the con- trol plots were broken by a large, 34-inch white oak which was wind- thrown. 38 TABLE 15. Five-Year Mortality Per Acre by Species and Treatments Gross Net Cutting Number Basal area volume volume treatment Species of trees sq. ft. bd.ft. bd.ft. Heavy White oak 1.1 1.72 246 230 single-tree selection Black oak 0.6 .60 77 75 Red oak 0.0 .00 O 0 Sugar maple 0.1 .08 6 5 Miscellaneous 0.0 .00 0 0 Total 1.8 2.40 329 310 Light White oak 0.9 1.03 120 112 single-tree selection Black oak 1.2 1.46 214 200 Red oak 0.0 .00 0 0 Sugar maple 0.0 .00 0 0 Miscellaneous 0.1 ' .08 8 8 Total 2.2 2.59 342 320 Control White oak 1.5 1.95 253 219 Black oak 0.9 .87 109 99 Red oak 0.1 .05 0 0 Sugar maple 0.4 .13 0 0 Miscellaneous 0.4 .28 21 18 Total 3.3 3.28 383 336 Annual Mortality Per Acre by Species and Treatment TABLE 16. 39 Gross Net Cutting Basal area volume volume treatment Species sq. ft. bd.ft. bd.ft. Heavy White oak .34 49.2 46.0 single-tree selection Black oak .12 15.4 15.0 Red oak .00 0.0 0.0 Sugar maple .02 1.2 1.0 Miscellaneous .00 0.0 0.0 Total .48 65.8 62.0 Light White oak .21 24.0 22.4 single-tree selection Black oak .29 42.8 40.0 Red oak .00 0.0 0.0 Sugar maple .00 0.0 0.0 Miscellaneous .02 1.6 1.6 Total .52 68.4 64.0 Control White oak .39 50.6 43.8 Black oak .17 21.8 19.8 Red oak .01 0.0 0.0 Sugar maple .03 0.0 0.0 Miscellaneous .06 4.2 3.5 Total .66 76.6 67.1 40 The mortality of miscellaneous species increased as the rate of cutting decreased. This increase can be explained by the species in- volved. The dead trees were black cherry, black walnut and red maple, which were killed by suppression. In the heavy and light cutting mortality was well scattered among diameter classes from the 8-inch class to the 22- or 23-inch class. On the control plots mortality was concentrated in the smaller diamet- er classes with only a very few dead trees above the 15-inch class. This was probably the result of much keener competition for growing space on the control plots. Analysis of mortality losses Source of Degrees Sum of Mean variation of freedom squares squares F Basal area Total _ 11 213.48 Treatment 2 6.96 3.48 Error 9 206.52 22.95 0.152 NS Net volume Total 11 3,493,864.92 Treatment 2 4,089.42 2,044.71 Error 9 3,489.775.50 3,877,528.33 .0005 NS Analysis of Five—Year Mortality Data An analysis of variance for mortality showed no significant dif- ferences between treatments for either basal area or net volume. Ca1- culated "F" values were for below the 4.26 value needed for signifi- cance at the 5 percent level. 41 Ingrowth Total ingrowth during the 5—year period was lowest on the control plots, but increased with the degree of cutting (Table 17). Twice as many ingrowth trees were present on the heavy selection cutting treat- ment as on the control plots. The heavy selection treatment had more than twice the basal area ingrowth of the control plots. Sugar maple dominated the ingrowth picture on all treatments. ranging from 75 to 82 percent of total basal area ingrowth. Only a very few scattered oaks grew to the minimum measured diameter of 7.5 inches. Since the stand has been changing in composition for the past . 100 years or so, there were very few oaks in the small diameter classes. Rudolph (1956) stated that no oak trees below 4 inches d.b.h. occurred in the stand. Lack of oak ingrowth was due to a lack of oak advance reproduction. waever, a great abundance of sugar maple ad- vance reproduction was present on the area. Table 18 shows the ingrowth by crown class and treatment. Number of trees and basal area ingrowth increased as cutting intensity in- creased for the upper 3 crown classes. Approximately one-half of the ingrowth in the 2 cutting treatments occurred in the intermediate crown class. About one-half of the ingrowth on the control plots oc- curred in the suppressed crown class. This ingrowth picture was formed primarily by the tolerant sugar maple, and not the other spe— cies present. Ingrowth by vigor class is shown in Table 19. Almost 50 percent of the ingrowth on the heavy selection cutting treatment was in vigor 1 trees, compared with about 30 for the light selection and 10 percent TABLE 17. Ingrowth Per Acre by Treatment and Species Cutting Basal area treatment Species No. trees sq. ft. Heavy Sugar maple 10.9 3.98 single-tree selection White oak 0.1 0.04 Red oak 0.1 0.04 1/ Miscellaneous— 2.8 1.05 Total 13.9 5.11 Light Sugar maple 8.6 3.16 single—tree selection Black oak 0.1 0.04 Miscellaneous 2.5 '0.91 Total 11.2 4.11 Control Sugar maple 5.1 1.77 White oak 0.1 0.05 Miscellaneous 1.3 0.43 Total 6.5 2.25 1/ Includes the following species listed in descending order based red maple, American beech, yellow-poplar, black cherry, American elm, sassafras, and American basswood. on basal area: TABLE 18. Ingrowth Per Acre by Treatment and Crown Class Cutting Crown Number Basal area treatment class of trees sq. ft. Heavy Dominant 1.9 0.70 single-tree selection Codominant 3.0 1.18 Intermediate 6.5 2.33 Suppressed 2.5 0.89 Total 13.9 5.10 Light Dominant 1.3 0.50 single-tree selection Codominant 2.4 0.93 Intermediate 5.4 1.97 Suppressed 2.1 0.71 Total 11.2 4.11 Control Dominant 0.1 0.05 Codominant 0.5 0.19 Intermediate 2.4 0.82 Suppressed 3.5 1.19 Total 6.5 2.25 TABLE 19. Ingrowth Per Acre by Treatment and Vigor Cutting Vigor Number Basal area treatment class of trees sq. ft. Heavy l 5.8 2.20 single-tree selection 2. 5.4 1.93 3 2.6 0.93 4 0.1 0.04 Total 13.9 5.10 Light 1 3.7 1.45 single-tree selection 2 5.0 1.81 3 2.5 0.85 4 0.0 0.00 Total 11.2 4.11 Control 1 0.5 1.18 2 2.4 0.84 3 3.5 1.19 4 0.1 0.04 Total 6.5 2.25 44 45 for the control plots. The majority of the ingrowth occurred in lower vigor classes as the degree of cutting decreased. Roughly 50 percent of the ingrowth occurred in vigor 1 trees on the heavy selection treat— ment and in vigor 3 trees on the control plots. Ingrowth trees had more growing space on the more heavily cut plots. Therefore, they had the ability to increase in vigor during the five—year period after cutting. This explains the higher percentage of more vigorous in- growth trees as cutting intensity increases. Analysis of Ingrowth Data The "F" value for the ingrowth analysis was the highest of all analyses but still not significant at the 5 percent level. A value of 4.26 was needed. Analysis of ingrowth gains Source of Degrees Sum of Mean variation of freedom squares squares F Total 11 226.310 Treatment 2 66.995 33.498 Error 9 159.315 17.702 1.893 NS Although the data indicate several interesting relationships and trends, analyses of variance showed no significant differences between cutting treatments at this time. Obviously, initial cuttings in the previously unmanaged stand must be improvement cuts to a large degree to remove the accumulation of defective, low vigor trees constituting poor growing stock. Data from each subsequent cutting period will in— creasingly reflect the effects of the specific cutting treatment. It 46 is expected that after the stand has been managed for several cutting cycles, significant differences between treatments will appear. Summary Oak-mixed hardwood stands are widely distributed and of high economic importance in southern lower Michigan. These stands are transitional between northern hardwoods and the oak-hickory mistures of the Central States. Most stands of this type are small privately owned farm woodlands. The average holding is approximately 15 acres. Sawlogs are the prin- cipal forest product at the present time, although pulpwood is poten- tially important. Much information is still needed on the silviculture and manage- ment of the oak-mixed hardwood type of southern lower Michigan. In the fall of 1952, a study aimed at determining the suitability of var- ious cutting methods and other management techniques for oak-mixed hardwoods was begun on the Fred Russ Forest. In contrast to most of lower Michigan's forests, this stand has escaped severe cutting and has been relatively undisturbed for the past 100 years. At the time of initial inventory, net volume was high aver- aging approximately 14,900 board feet per acre. Half of this volume was in white oak, and 26 percent was in black oak. Basal area aver- aged 122 square feet per acre and showed about the same distribution among species as the net volume. Diameter distribution for the entire stand was fairly typical for an unevenaged stand. However, it is apparent that the stand has been 47 and still is changing in composition, with the very tolerant sugar ma- ple replacing the less tolerant oak. For purposes of the study the area was divided into 20 plots of 2 acres each. All trees 7.5 inches d.b.h. and larger were measured. The following information was recorded: species; d.b.h. to the near- est tenth inch; merchantable height in l6-foot logs to the nearest half-log; form class; crown class, by the four standard classes; grade of the butt log; and cull defect class. Five treatments with four replications for each were applied to the area at random. Cutting treatments included a heavy single-tree selection treatment with a residual basal area of 75 square feet per acre; a light single-tree selection with a residual basal area of 90 square feet per acre and a control where no cutting was done. In the fall of 1958, five years after cutting the stand was rein- ventoried. All data for the initial, residual and stand five years after cutting were coded and placed on punch cards for machine proces- sing. Total stand and growth information was machine sorted and tabu— lated. Due to the small number of trees involved, information on mor— tality and ingrowth was sorted and tabulated manually. Following cutting the percentages of white oak and sugar maple volume remaining in the residual stand were increased slightly on both cutting treatments. Black oak was reduced as a component in both treatments. Miscellaneous species increased in percentage of basal area on the heavy cutting treatment, but the percentage of volume was reduced. Both basal area and volume percentages of miscellaneous spe— cies were reduced on the light selection cutting treatment. 48 Due to differences in initial stocking, more basal area was re- moved in the light selection cutting treatment than in the heavy se- lection cutting treatment. The same relationship held true for volume. These facts considered with the amount of residual growing stock, ex- plain the greater total board-foot volume growth on the lightly cut plots. Five-year growth expressed as a percentage of the residual grow- ing stock was approximately the same for the 2 cutting treatments. Both of the cutting treatments grew 12 percent of the residual volume, or 3 to 4 percent more than the control plots. However, these differ— ences were not significant at the 5 percent level. In all treatments, vigor class 1 trees were the only ones which contributed more than their proportion of the five—year growth. On the heavy selection treatment, vigor class 1 trees having only 56, 58, and 59 percent of the basal area, gross and net volume, contributed 64, 67, and 68 percent respectively of the growth. Figures for the light selection treatment and the control plots showed a similar pat- tern. As expected, mortality decreased as cutting intensity increased. Mortality ranged from 0 to 920 board feet net volume per acre on the individual plots. Average per acre mortality ranged from 310 bd. ft. on the heavy selection cutting treatment to 336 bd. ft. net volume on the control plots. An analysis of variance showed no significant dif— ference between treatments at the 5 percent level. Practically all of the mortality occurred in 2 species of oak, white and black. The light selection treatment with a higher proportion 49 of black oak in the residual stand lost more black oak volume through mortality. On the heavy selection treatment and the control plots, about twice as much volume of white oak was lost through mortality. The mortality of miscellaneous species was primarily caused by suppression of intolerant species such as black cherry and black wal- nut. On the 2 cutting treatments, mortality was well distributed among all diameter classes. Keen competition for growing space on the con— trol plots caused a concentration of mortality in the smaller diameter classes. Basal area ingrowth on the heavy selection treatment was more than double that on the control plots. Sugar maple dominated the in- growth picture on all treatments. About one-half of the ingrowth on the control plots was in the suppressed crown class, due to the toler- ant sugar maple. On the 2 cutting treatments the bulk of the ingrowth was in the intermediate crown class. I Almost 50 percent of the ingrowth on the heavy selection treat— ment was in vigor 1 trees, compared with 30 percent for the light se- lection and 10 percent for the control plots. The majority of ingrowth occurred in lower vigor classes as the degree of cutting decreased. Ingrowth trees on the more heavily cut plots had more growing space, therefore had more opportunity to increase in vigor during the five- year period after cutting. Roughly 50 percent of the ingrowth occurred in vigor 1 trees on the heavy selection treatment, in vigor 2 trees on the light selection treatment and in vigor 3 trees on the control plots. 50 Analyses of variance for basal area and net volume of total growth and mortality and for ingrowth, showed no significant differ— ences between cutting treatments at this time. This agrees with pre- vious work of other investigators. Gilbert and Jensen (1958) state that any cutting under the selection system has the combined objectives of thinning, pre-salvage and harvest cutting. This is especially true of first cuts in previously unmanaged forests. Minckler (1958) also found that the initial cutting did not affect net volume growth appre— ciably. This five-year period is only a very short portion of the long term study. The study is designed to run for a 100-year period. Obviously, initial cuttings in this previously unmanaged stand must be improvement cuts to a large degree to remove the accumulation of de- fective, low vigor trees constituting poor growing stock. Data from each subsequent cutting period will increasingly reflect the effects of the specific cutting treatments. It is expected that after the stand has been managed for several cutting cycles, significant differ- ences between treatments will appear. 10. 11. 12. 13. LITERATURE CITED Arbogast, C. Jr. 1957. Marking guides for northern hardwoods un- der the selection system. Lake States Forest Exp. Sta. Paper No. 56, 20 pp, illus. Arend, J. L., and A. F. Monroe. 1950. Growth in two oak woodlots following an improvement cut. Lake States Forest Exp. Sta. Tech. Note No. 342, l p. Eyre, F. H. and W. M. Zillgitt. 1953. Partial cutting in north— ern hardwoods of the Lake States -- twenty-year experimental results. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bull. 1076, 124 pp. Gevorkiantz, S. R. and L. P. Olsen. 1955. Composite volume tables for timber and their application in the Lake States. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bull. 1104, 51 pp. Gilbert, A. M., R. W. Wilson, Jr., and R. J. Hutnik. 1955. Growth behavior of northern hardwoods after a partial cutting. Jour. For. 53:488-492. ‘ Gilbert, A. M. and-V. S. Jensen. 1958. A management guide for northern hardwoods in New England. Northeastern Forest Exp. Sta. Paper No. 112, 22 pp. illus. Goetzen, C. B., W. W. Barton, C. B. Stoot, and J. H. Stone. 1943. Suggested hardwood tree class standards for farm foresters. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Region 9, 34 pp. Jensen, V. S. 1943. Suggestions for the management of northern hardwood stands in the Northeast. JOur. For. 41:180-185. Longwood, F. R. 1951. Ingrowth following cutting in northern hardwoods. Lake States Forest Exp. Sta. Tech. Note 352, l p. Meteer, J. W. 1953. Mortality in Ohio hardwoods. Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. For. Mimeo. 3, 3 pp. Minckler, L. S. 1958. Bottomland hardwoods respond to cutting. Central States Forest Exp. Sta. Tech. Paper No. 154, 10 pp, illus. Rudolph, V. J. 1956. Stand conditions in the oldegrowth hard- woods of the Fred Russ Forest in southwestern Michigan. Jour. For. 54(4):249-254. Sander, I. L. and M. J. Williamson. 1957. Response of a mixed hardwood stand in eastern Kentucky to a harvest cutting. Jour. For. 55(4):291-293. 14. 15. 16. 52 U.S. Forest Service. 1949. Hardwood log grades for standard lum- ber. Forest Products Laboratory No. D1737. Madison, Wiscon- sin, 61 pp. Zillgitt, W. M. 1948. Optimum economic stocking for northern hardwoods. Lake States Forest Exp. Sta. Paper No. 10, 14 pp. Zillgitt, W. M. and S. R. Gevorkiantz. 1946. Estimating cull in northern hardwoods. Lake States Forest Exp. Sta. Paper No. 3, 7 pp. APPENDI X .monSueon Hoonmhna no ongaonwoaoH o» GOAHoHon an oonu Hosen>nosn may no :Onnmoofl map hp no hanaoso ounm on» an woodmannnn on so: none mommmao xmnn can nowa> manonooo an nOHoEnumo on» no «soamvzn onfi* Annzov .oEsHo> on son an venom paoonoo ow sun» moon moons Ge A.m=nua:0 oumno loos nouns mmoH no can» Iononnopoo ounsnnoo on poonnsmv gonna noon: .xoon an monouono £803 omnoq .mposx pagan use . wsnho monoconn and: mpoxooq «on nuancesz :Bono no gonna .oHon none: can .oaposonanm some .mnoon on madame Has no mnsum sosonn omnoa .oHon one no .w and Insonoos psooon m50nnom made no stone one an o>ono won ouanoeo: .Uom ,.mpoon wasnam mnEnH coco wanna use: .uon z>oom Imonaasm aaono no .o mmano open won» a Bonn» snoanannoo Hana eonon oopmnn monumnnopoonano one «0 once no 0:0 .0 mmaHo one msOnu60nnnooaw o>ond on» manpoos no: moonh .xoon manmo ..w o>ono oouunanoa on has nonoadnn osom on has mnoax panda A.wsnuu:o o>npooaom . no madman cana Bow < ononoooa museumspnsv .oHon noon: on» so manpm nosonn .oHon on» .saono no .xssnu .muoon omnma son a use :Bono no .m amnnm an eon oneneoanoasn Axoopm wen ow owmsmo usooon m50n on» canvas mnanfl name lunenoa mxoono amonn no paosnaoooo IBonw ooowv Inch 0: .oouoon hasnnm ownoa 30m a munsnom some no eon ouanooos .psesnaou :Bono mm A.uso o>nnooaom no oonx .xssnu noBoH so has pmosae mosoumnunsv manna canon munenom .ouuo . Isonanm cocoa Axooum .anno no 55.3 .508 3 .Esono an masons noon inane. manaonm amendo Hmonsdnooa «zoo Heaofimaooo so one man ends on» an mxoono .usosnsoeoo no «soHHoOxov Ion o: .ooaoon hasnnh Iasno Hansen: munanom amonu no won 02 psosnaoo saono H< xmnm nonosdnn poem. mxoono “menu senunmoa aeono mmaao xmnn one pom one use nown> Honosou newn> *nommaao xmnm can nowa> done uooaendm anonunoz .mpHHmsd N onenw no omHBnozuo nH m moon» :H nouuHsnoa soHuosbou HHso usoonoq manm .muHHmsU H onmnw.no omHBnonuo «H N oponm =H nouuHsnoa aoHposooo HHso «soonoo hprm .muoomoo use cance sH nouoEdHo v\H swap onoa suHB nmoH aH «\H ooozeon oosdaoHHo xoono one modem .mmenoeso +.m oao ease onos so: an oHoHn vxn 1.5.H.o :NH on ooeHaHH anomaoH .o 6:8 .m m moans .omenaoao o3» op ooansHH .n.n.o :HH a means .muHHosu oceansm H oodnm on «was .n.H.o :oH N dunno .mpusn H oomnm new .n.H.o :NH 6003mmon use and aH II maoHunooxm III msoHnosnumaH oom III AsSEdeEv dons .mhoflhmn QZM GZDOm new new $04 ace HeaeHxaav oooea manosHoan .zonnoanmo 4456 son eon anH emH HesaHxasV onnoenmo noose oz< cameo o\m o\e o\m oxm Hassnanev season moan an oHonn oouHaHHsD m u N N N AESEHKoEv soon so nonesz .N .m .m u an .b AEdEHnHEV numaoa Amooom when m 0:» GOV mczHBBDD Mquo +.w +.NH " .HHI.m +.oH +.oH . . . . . . . . . . . . Hassnansv anozmq +=m HH +:om " =oHueoH :nHI:mH . . . . . . . . . . . Hassnansv mmnm=